6D worse than 5D Mk II?

My main concern is still the video aspects of the cameras. Substantially better rolling shutter and low light performance would make me regret my pending purchase of a 5D Mark II. However, if the 6D is going to be delayed until March, that's too long for me to wait.

who said it was gonna be delayed? they are scheduled to ship dec 10.

Alex_Mk3 wrote in post #15168428
who said it was gonna be delayed? they are scheduled to ship dec 10.

The only place I've been able to verify the Dec 10 date is on B&H. I've seen several threads and posts on the internet talking about a delay until March of '13.

gotaudi wrote in post #15163577
Ummm I find the opposite. I have been working extensively with the mkIII files and find them to be easier to work with compared to the mkII. The files seem to pull more detail out of the highlights and shadows. High ISO performance is also a little better (about 1/2-3/4 of a stop better).

Could you point me in the direction where you saw a better file from the MKII vs MKIII?

He cant, because hes talking bs.

It is very much in Canon's best interest to have this camera ready to ship around Christmas time and I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

neilgcart wrote in post #15167984
If you look at the posts carefully those that are claiming the 5D MK II has better IQ than the 5D MKIII in general do not actually own the MKIII or have not used both cameras in anger. You are not going to see large improvements with the 5D MKIII at low ISOs under perfect conditions but the improvements are there and it will certainly give you more consistently good results. This is my experience having owned and used the 5D MKII and now owned and used the 5D MKIII for several months in the real world.

Neil

Thanks Neil. That makes sence and good to hear it from someone who's owned both. The high iso will be great coupled with better AF. If it can pick up more fool proof too I say its a winner. I love my 5DII but do want to see improvements for my cash when I decide to take the plunge

TheEngineer wrote in post #15168509
The only place I've been able to verify the Dec 10 date is on B&H. I've seen several threads and posts on the internet talking about a delay until March of '13.

I pre ordered from best buy and it says Dec 12. If it changes then I'll probably cancel but I dont see why Canon wouldn't want this out before the holidays.

I'm very sure Canon would want this out by the holidays too, but that doesn't mean there can't be unexpected delays that would force them to delay the 6D's release.

Maybe someone got the release of the new 5D3 FW mixed up with the 6D delivery date?

Lowner wrote in post #15166823
Cannot disagree, but none of it improves the artistic qualities in an image.

Oh, but it does. Not directly, but rather through the additional capability it gives the artist.

For instance, better understanding of exposure means you can make the image look the way you want without having to guess. Better understanding of that and dynamic range means you can tailor your shot to the postprocessing you'll do afterwards in order to show what you want to show and hide what you want to hide while otherwise maximizing image quality.

Better understanding of sensor resolution and what it means for lenses means you can select lenses which are within your budget and which will yield tack sharp images (even at 100%), and will better understand how to set shutter speed. An understanding of the relationship between time, resolution, distance, and velocity means you can compute how much motion blur you'll get when you take the shot, and not merely have to guess or rely on experience, and similarly it means you can compute how fast your shutter speed has to be in order to truly stop the action.


There are rules of thumb for most of that stuff, but someone with an engineering level understanding of these things will know when the rules apply and when they don't, because that person can derive the rules from first principles if necessary.

I'm not arguing that the camera is suddenly doing more for you, I'm arguing that an engineering level understanding of how the camera works (which is to say, understanding how and why the camera works as it does) makes for a more capable (and thus better) artist. Now, I'm not saying that it's a substitute for artistic talent. But it makes artistic talent more effective.

I beg to differ. If better cameras meant better images we would be swamped with wonderful art. We are not, which makes my point better than I ever could.

We saw the 2011 UK Landscape competition exhibitition a few days ago and while there were some good shots, there was nothing amazing and some I'd actually have put in the bin. I don't get bogged down in the technicalities of this "pastime", for me the effort is to improve my "eye".

Lowner wrote in post #15170970
I beg to differ. If better cameras meant better images we would be swamped with wonderful art. We are not, which makes my point better than I ever could.

This isn't so much about better cameras as it is about better understanding of how the cameras work and what they can do.

But with respect to better cameras, what you're not accounting for here is that the camera is just a tool. A better camera places fewer limits on its wielder. It's up to the wielder to make the most of his camera. The reason we're not swamped with art which is better than before (something which, I might add, is probably debatable) is that the number of people who can take their cameras to their very limits is probably rather small, and always has been. More importantly, the camera is but a part of the arsenal of tools that are used to capture and generate images. It's a central part, mind you, but a part nonetheless. Finally, if one is limited by one's artistic vision, then no camera in the world will fix that. I would wager that the number of people who have both great artistic vision and mastery of photographic tools is rather small. I would bet, though, that their images have improved over time because their cameras now place fewer limits on them than before.

Keep in mind that landscapes are probably the hardest thing for DSLRs to do really well, precisely because they're relatively limited in resolution (and, until relatively recently, dynamic range) when compared with the cameras that had been traditionally used for that purpose (large format film).

The question is: has the yardstick you use to define "amazing" changed? It would not surprise me at all if it has. Which is to say, I would not be surprised if you would have regarded some of the shots at the competition as "amazing" if you had been looking at them a few years ago. But your eye has almost certainly become more discerning over time as you've refined your craft.


A notable problem is that images which are commonplace tend to lose their luster. Those same images which looked amazing before may not look so amazing once everyone is producing them. But that's just speculation on my part, and I could be completely wrong here.

I admit that as my eye improves I have raised my own expectations. I am very self-critical.

Your comment about the camera being just a tool is exactly my own thinking, they are all extremely good tools these days and too many users want to blame the tools when the real issue is closer to home and less easily solved. Yes, issues with DR and resolution remain, but they will be addressed and solutions found. I just wish my own talents would improve as quickly!

Lowner wrote in post #15171507
I admit that as my eye improves I have raised my own expectations. I am very self-critical.

Your comment about the camera being just a tool is exactly my own thinking, they are all extremely good tools these days and too many users want to blame the tools when the real issue is closer to home and less easily solved. Yes, issues with DR and resolution remain, but they will be addressed and solutions found. I just wish my own talents would improve as quickly!

There are ways to solve the DR issue, it depends on the photographer's skill

put a cheap camera in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing and they can take great shots.

http://www.youtube.com …=wX76k-chflo&feature=plcp

that's why banding isn't an issue if you know what your doing. You shouldn't be pushing the boundary's that much in where you have to push the blacks that far. There are options to over come this. Of course you need to spend more money

One should understand how the camera works and how that effects the photo so when you come across a problem you know how to fix it.